Buk Missile System Lethal, But Undiscriminating

With mounting evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian separatist rebels who believed they were engaging a military aircraft, attention is focusing on the Russian-built Almaz-Antey Buk-M1 ground-based air defense system (GBADS) that destroyed the airliner.

The Buk-M1 (SA-11 Gadfly to NATO) can be used by minimally trained operators to deliver a lethal attack, without the safeguards built into other comparable GBADS, an Aviation Week analysis shows. It is also one of the two GBADS — both of Soviet origin — that are most widely distributed in conflict zones with the potential for large-scale, cross-border or civil violence.

The feature that makes the Buk-series weapons uniquely dangerous was introduced in the 1970s when Tikhomirov NIIP, now part of Almaz-Antey, designed the system to replace the 2K12 Kub low-altitude missile system, known to NATO as the SA-6 Gainful. (The similar names are coincidental: "Kub" means "cube" and "Buk" means "beech.")

Kub was exported to Egypt after the destruction of that nation’s air force in a low-level air strike in 1967, and proved lethal in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. But it had a serious weakness in that it could engage only one target at a time. A Kub battery included one radar vehicle and four launch vehicles and used semi-active radar homing (SARH) guidance. The radar vehicle carried two antennas, a search radar and a continuous-wave tracker-illuminator, and the missile homed on to energy from the illuminator beam that was reflected from the target. With one illuminator per battery, the system could not start a second engagement until the previous missile had hit the target.

In the 1982 Lebanon war, the Israel Defense Force – Air Force launched a wave of decoys against Kubs and other GBADS. Once the Kubs locked onto the decoys they were unable to respond to the IDF-AF fighters that appeared next, and were destroyed.

The designers of the replacement Buk system had anticipated this problem. In addition to a new radar vehicle – the Phazotron 9S18M, Snow Drift to NATO – they fitted each launch vehicle with its own X-band multi-mode radar, under a radome on the front of the rotating launch platform. The vehicle is defined as a transporter/erector/launcher and radar (Telar). Similar to a fighter radar, the Telar radar (known to NATO as Fire Dome) has search, track and illuminator functions and can scan through a 120-deg. arc, independent of the movement of the platform.

This feature may have been a crucial factor in the destruction of MH17. The Fire Dome radar’s main job was to permit simultaneous engagement of more targets – one per Telar – under control of the battery’s 9S18M Snow Drift. But the Soviet military and the designers installed a set of backup modes that would permit the Telars to detect and attack targets autonomously, in the event the Snow Drift was shut down or destroyed by NATO’s rapidly improving anti-radar missiles.

The autonomous modes are intended for last-ditch use by the Telar operators, not the more highly trained crews in the battery command vehicle. According to an experienced analyst of Russian-developed radar, the automatic radar modes display targets within range. The operator can then command the system to lock up the target, illuminate and shoot.

Critically, these backup modes also bypass two safety features built into the 9S18M Snow Drift radar: a full-function identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes. The IFF system uses a separate interrogator located above the main radar antenna and most likely will have been upgraded to current civilian standards.

The 9S18M introduced new NCTR processing technology, according to a 1998 interview with Buk designer Ardalion Rastov. NCTR techniques are closely held, but one of the most basic – jet engine modulation, or the analysis of beats and harmonics in the radar return that are caused by engine fan or compressor blades – should easily discriminate among a 777 with high-bypass turbofans, a turboprop transport or an Su-25 attack fighter.

There is no sign of an IFF interrogator on the Buk Telar’s Fire Dome radar or elsewhere on the vehicle. In normal operation, it would not be necessary since the target’s identity would be verified (according to the prevailing rules of engagement) before target data was passed to the Telar. Other GBADS also leave identification to the main search radar and the command-and-control center; however, the launch units cannot engage and fire without central guidance. The Buk’s combination of lethality and lack of IFF/NCTR is unique.

The Buk-M1 and later derivatives, the M2 and M2E, have been deployed in 14 nations, and are operational in other areas subject to internal conflict. In January 2013, Israel launched an air strike that was apparently intended to destroy a number of Buk-M2E vehicles – the more advanced version – that were being transferred from Syria to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. In all, Syria is reported to have possessed eight Buk-M2E batteries. Syria also operates as many as 40 S-125 (SA-3 Goa) batteries, which are reportedly being upgraded. These also are medium-range, mobile weapons, but the launch units do not have radar. The same goes for the nation’s aging Kub batteries.

Egypt has 50-plus batteries of S-125, some of which have been modernized, and has been reportedly negotiating orders for Buk-M2E systems. Yemen also has some S-125 systems. Most pre-2003 Iraqi and Libyan GBADS have been destroyed, analysts suggest.

Discuss this Article 23

What "mounting evidence" is there that it was Russian separatists? Citations?

Is this publication joining the shrill chorus of media outlets indicting Russians based on flimsy "evidence" such as debunked YouTube videos and FaceBook postings?

How about asking real questions like: who would direct flight MH17 over a warzone? Where are the air traffic control recordings with flight MH17? Why was that particular flight directed above Donestk while every flight before it that day was directly 100 miles to the south? Why assume that it was a Russian-owned SAM with no hard physical evidence?

MH17 was flying a flight planned route...a route Malaysian airlines filed and had previously flown. A check of the FlightRadar24.com database for Flight MH17 over the previous week shows they flew the same route. The airspace they were flying in was deemed "safe" by Eurocontrol. On the same route MH17 was on, about 30-40 in front but flying in the opposite direction was a Singapore Airlines flight. Concerning evidence, a portion of the wreckage has been found that clearly shows damage typical associated with a missile strike. Additionally, it has been released that U.S. satellites over that area - purposely placed their - were able to a missile launch in that area.

Is this true? According all sources I have seen MH17 was diverted 300kms to the north. The Ukrainian Government have issued a statement saying that the diversion was due to thunderstorms. Malaysian Airlines has released a statement saying that is not true. In addition in the previous 5 days all MA flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur flew south of the war zone. Do you have a source

I hardly think this article is indicting the Russians (that is to say, an organized, trained force under Russian "advisement" or leadership) as you seem to be implying. In fact, it seems to offer the best technical support for some sort of "Oh $&@*!" scenario that I've yet seen, where poor command and control, perhaps a captured weapon system that is incompletely deployed, the fog of war, and an itchy trigger finger could lead to tragedy.

Ukrainian SU-25s are dropping like flies, now maybe a good time for some "GoodHearts" to ante-up some Harm help. Since western countries help would look a little dubious, merchants testing out anti-radar devices (rockets, missles, glide-bombs, etc.) on the Ruskies tech. might bring some creds. to successful technologies. Never let a good war go to waste! :)

This is by far the most informed discussion on the MH17 shootdown that I've seen on the internet. I have great sympathy and respect for those that lost their lives but I' inclined to agree with what clockworkelves had to say. I base my comment on this fact. The area is an active war zone, where a weak government can't effectively manage its own affairs. In recent days prior to the MH17 incident there were military aircraft shot down in the area. Several things failed. First, I saw no indication that Ukrainian civil aviation authorities passed information relating to MH17 to the military side. MH17's captain, Malaysia Air and Eurocontrol exercised extremely poor judgement and the fact that others were flying similar routes does not substitute bad judgement. When I hear an argument made that the bad Russians supplied the weapons and training used in the shootdown, I have to ask how many civilian casualties have resulted from our own supplies of weapons. You do what you have to do to protect and advance your own national interests, and yes sometimes it blows up on you, but that's why you get the "big bucks." However, knowingly flying a jetliner over a war zone with current aviation engagements just because someone else is doing it redefines stupidity. I, for one, am proud of Delta for terminating flights into Ben Gurion Airport. It demonstrates maturity and a high level of regard for its passengers and flight crews.

Thank you for this excellent research and description. I think you have answered the remaining question about this event: how could untrained rebels operate such a sophisticated system? Well, as we saw all along, the Buk deployed near Torez was NOT accompanied by its command and control system (See picture here http://t.co/Uz38yGPwGV). The rear portion of the vehicle is the Telar radar (Better picture - http://t.co/Xsl33v381r). And here is a picture of a FULL Buk system (http://t.co/MNnb6Zofvu).

Therefore all the safeties afforded by that system (In particular IFF) were not present and it becomes a "simplified" point and shoot weapon. Fighters with minimal training could certainly operate it as they probably did a few days prior against a An-26. In fact, as you recall, this is what they though they'd hit at first.

If I follow up your logic and that of the article above, you dont have any problems "the Fighters for Russian world" - how they call themselves, to be equipped with BUKs , but they only could have been a little bit more trained. I"like" this idea !There is nothing "unique" in the fact that BUK is designed the way witch partially was presented above;designers had technical specification and they did the job.The fact that Russians have different design approach, does not mean they are wrong and "uniqueness" is a result of "existence" not of "nonexistense" of "something"...

We are awash with physical evidence.This flight was completely within the limits of all air traffic procedures.
In my humble opinion poorly trained troops that are utterly without discipline are just as guilty of murder as thugs on the street regardless of the uniform they wear.

Web posted comm intercepts suggested voice link used for IFF in the absence of the suite command vehicle and long range radar vehicle. // MoD Moscow briefing indicated a Russian control centre had precise knowledge of MH 17 altitude, speed, location at probable time of acquisition by a missile Telar & voice comment "aircraft has arrived"....
Effectively prevented vulnerability of Byk long range radars to HARM type defense countermeasures, while providing possible IFF and permissive launch from a very remote CC.

I agree that this is the best discussion on MH17 on the internet. I'm dutch, and though I understand the mourning and the calls for revenge, it must be said that probably nobody wanted this accident to happen. Nobody, either Russian, Ukrainian or separatist, wants bad publicity by downing civilians. Korean 007 was an accident, Vincennes was an accident, it shows that radar identification does not work in warzones, and these areas should be avoided by civilian flights.
Sending in UN troops or weaponry will help Ukrain, but will destabilize world peace. Let's mourn, let's help relatives, but let's not fight and kill more moms and kids.

Nice to see that
not only there aren't evidence for speak
"mounting evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian separatist rebels "
but also we have no one evidence that was a Buk to shot down airplane !
All this article is based on 2 presumptions not verified ...

Newsletter Signup

By clicking below, I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service
and to Penton's use of my contact information to communicate with me about Penton's or its third-party
partners' products, services, events and research opportunities. Penton's use of the information I
provide will be consistent with Penton's Privacy Policy.

I acknowledge and agree to Penton's Terms of Service and to Penton's
use of my contact information to communicate with me about offerings by
Penton, its brands, affiliates and/or third-party partners, consistent
with Penton's Privacy Policy.*